True enough, though Encampments are one of the few large-scale activitieswith an end-goal of modeling the Cadet Program's structure and military environment.

Most other activities and NCSAs include that to one degree or another, but have other goals or missions such as flight training, emergency services, career exploration, etc.outside modeling what CAP is to newer cadets.

The Encampment Commander is the person "running" Encampment whilst ongoing.

The Director is the person who oversees all of Encampment, to include the planning. Under the Cadet Program regulations, "activity directors" are responsible for the management of safety, adherence to regulations, and cadet protection.

The Director can also be the Commander.

Remember: NCOs cannot be unit commanders. Encampment is not a "unit." It's an activity.

The Encampment Commander is the person "running" Encampment whilst ongoing.

The Director is the person who oversees all of Encampment, to include the planning. Under the Cadet Program regulations, "activity directors" are responsible for the management of safety, adherence to regulations, and cadet protection.

The Director can also be the Commander.

Remember: NCOs cannot be unit commanders. Encampment is not a "unit." It's an activity.

The Encampment Commander is the person "running" Encampment whilst ongoing.

The Director is the person who oversees all of Encampment, to include the planning. Under the Cadet Program regulations, "activity directors" are responsible for the management of safety, adherence to regulations, and cadet protection.

The Director can also be the Commander.

Remember: NCOs cannot be unit commanders. Encampment is not a "unit." It's an activity.

Honestly, what difference does it make really if NCOs were able to command a squadron?

In CAP, NCOs and officers are essentially the same jobs, at least at the squadron level. There's no distinction if you have an TSgt as your Safety Officer or Emergency Services Officer versus a 1st Lt.

So don't disagree with what you're getting at. I can see if CAP is trying to better align NCO command roles with traditional military NCO logic. But there's only so far they can take it with the structure of CAP and "volunteerisms." We're on the same page here in theory. But in practicality, what's the difference?

Those involved with the proliferation of the NCO program in CAP will at the same time say that grade is meaningless, yet work to separate volunteers by grade in both statusand tasking.

You can't have it both ways, and the math doesn't work in a volunteer paradigm, especially one as focused on accouterments and uniforms, and worse, NHQ either winds up cutting off otherwise qualified people from important jobs, or will twist itself in knots trying to make the square peg fit into a round hole with threads.

NCOs can't be commanders, so we'll just change the name of the office(s)?

NO ONE cares if a qualified CAP NCO is appointed as a unit CC, but the optics are wronghaving officers salute and report to an NCO and you're never going to fix that, becauseit doesn't work that way in organizations that actually have class-based grade system.

Those same organizations also have "up or out" with promotions, and expectations of actual performance and responsibility commensurate with those promotions, and moving between classes, in either direction is unusual on the whole, and no small undertaking.

If it's that big a deal, change the unit cc to a non-grade post (i.e. the member appointedrelinquishes his grade for the duration), then have officers who report to this director.Lots of police departments have moved to this model. "Sir" still works, but no salutes, no uniform, and no problems related to NCO / Officer interaction because it doesn't exisit.

No grade, promotions, ES, or any non-unit functions during appointment. Director focused PD only.Do this for all levels. The National CC is already the CEO, so it's partially done.

Those involved with the proliferation of the NCO program in CAP will at the same time say that grade is meaningless, yet work to separate volunteers by grade in both statusand tasking.

You can't have it both ways, and the math doesn't work in a volunteer paradigm, especially one as focused on accouterments and uniforms, and worse, NHQ either winds up cutting off otherwise qualified people from important jobs, or will twist itself in knots trying to make the square peg fit into a round hole with threads.

NCOs can't be commanders, so we'll just change the name of the office(s)?

Ah, okay. We're on the same page here entirely.

At the lower echelon level, the role of the NCO is pretty much a recruiting/retention tool via insignia.

NCOs in CAP undergo the exact same professional development training as officers, giving them the same education (with the exception of the prior basic military training that NCOs must have---from their military service up to at least the grade of E-4, in addition to whatever other education they may have received). So if an NCO takes SLS, TLC, and UCC, what makes them any less qualified to run a squadron than a 1st Lt or Captain?

"But NCOs aren't commanders; they're First Sergeants." Okay, but we don't have a First Sergeant training program in CAP outside of the Cadet Program. So we basically just don't want to call them commanders. And as you said, we call them directors.

In a structured environment where tasks can be dependent on grade, NCOs can absolutely have a place. But in the volunteer environment where we don't have tasks dependent on grade, does it really matter who does what based on rank? There are unit commanders who are 2d Lts that have Lt Cols who are their deputy commander. A TSgt can be CDC.

So unless the roles are designed with specific training elements, I don't know what the differences is aside from what people wear and what they're called.

There are a number of people who want to become an NCO because they hold a value to that from their military service. No issue with that. And there's a way to employ NCOs, especially with Cadet Programs, in a traditional NCO capacity. But when it comes to eServices duty assignments, there's not much of a difference there, if any.

I don't get what the prioritization/intent is in these regs with the NCO construct.

From what I’ve been told, the addition of NCO duty titles in eservices is “too hard/too much trouble for the IT people to do”.

And NCOs becoming commanders now will cross over to the appropriate officer grade for the duration of the assignment. The benefit of that for NCOs is it still counts as TIG for their NCO grade, so it doesn’t stop the clock on that progression while allowing them to command if necessary.

Just as a side note, there's apparently a Facebook discussion going around where people are insinuating that they cannot be instated as CAP NCOs as active duty E-4s. So I'm not sure where that gouge is stemming from, but it goes back to the NCO role being misunderstood from a regulatory standpoint.

If people took the time to read the regulation, they'd see in plain English how not complicated it is to be an NCO in CAP, all in initial appointment, progression, and duty assignment.